Holy Moly! Give it a REST!!!

[redskinsfan]

Here we go. Let me show you one by one why you're wrong on each point.

1. Throwing for 5000 yards is not the same as breaking the record nor is it what I said. I dont love passing yardage as an argument to keep a QB either and I could go into that but its really not the topic that I DID mention. It is better than saying he broke a record. But I only mentioned the record. Records arent inherently meaningful in contract negotiations. He broke a record - good for him but theres ALL sorts of other factors to consider about the record before that record means much in contract negotiations.


2. Well I didnt say most GMs or teams did I? I said us. Because people have used that as an argument to keep what we have. This is silly for the reasons I said. Its a small sample size and not the same front office. Just because we failed here in the past does not mean we will fail here in the future. Thats pretty simple really. And your whole rebuttal is about something I didnt say sooo moving on...


3. Very good you figured out that the important part of keeping a QB is whether he is good enough or not to win with. Or as you put it...a franchise QB. Since Kirk is according to us and we plan to keep him then we dont need to worry about who would replace him. That seems pretty simple. Now bear with me here it gets just a touch more complicated. If Kirk is NOT good enough - which neither of us are saying - then it would be a bad idea to make a huge long term commitment to him. So therefore, it also would not matter who we plan to replace him with - just that we dont make a huge commitment we would regret. Then we can carry on finding a cheap replacement until we find the guy who IS good enough (AKA Kirk).

4. This isnt about just the running game yet somehow thats all you talked about. Youre just trying to move the goal posts for the 3rd time now. Now I admit the running game is not fantastic. But it wasnt horrible either. They averaged a very nice 4.5 ypc. This offense also boasted a solid oline that was at its best in pass blocking, an elite receiving TE, elite deep threat and solid #1, a solid #2, one of the best slot receivers in the league, and the best #2 TE in the league. You could argue thats the best group of pass catchers in the league but even if you disagree with that they're at least top 5. Kirk did well with all this. To say he needs MORE help though is ridiculous. If a QB needs MORE than a top 5 group of pass catchers, solid to very good oline, and decent running game to have a good offense - you shouldnt keep that QB. Kirk of course did run a mostly very successful offense, but hey I wasnt the one arguing he needed more help in the first place.

5. Im not denying this was his 2nd year as starter. Thats a fact. You just didnt read what I wrote properly. Only having 2 years as a starter is not a reason to keep a guy. His age is relevant because along with his 41 starts it shows hes been around a while. We cant just assume he's going to develop into the QB we want today. He needs to be good enough today that we feel good committing to him even if he doesnt improve.

Oh and would you look at that. You conveniently left out one of the reasons. Probably because you realized that just because rg3, mcnabb, and beck were trash doesnt mean we should commit to the first person who isnt. That would be insanity.

So all in all you ignored 1 point entirely, just restated 3 points entirely as completely new points and then argued the new points instead of what I actually said, and then just completely misread and misunderstood the other 2 points. You went a solid 0 for 6. Good job.

Let's start off -- again -- on why you can't employ basic elements of logic in this piece. First, you stated that you'd address things seriatim. That's fine until you don't realize that each of them operates as a whole. Remember that criminal defense analogy I alluded to? You're no different than a defendant arguing things point by point (e.g., hey, there are a lot of people that frequent that well the victim's body was found) without realizing that each point must be assessed in their entirety.

Second, and more significantly, is your admission that Kirk is a franchise quarterback. You don't seem to get how damaging a concession this is to your lame points. This basically nukes all your points other than the second one, which was about how we haven't drafted QBs wisely in the draft in the past. I mentioned other GMs since that's a larger way of showing that that phenomenon isn't limited to just us but just about everyone else. Hello?! Thus, let me restate this: because we and others have whiffed at drafting QBs in prior years, what makes you think that the draft this -- or anyone other year -- for that matter will make a difference?

Also, your view that we had a "decent" running game is absolutely laughable. This is based simply by you taking statistics at face value without realizing that they're completely bogus. How many other people agree with that? Rick Snider came on The Fan on Monday and stated the obvious: the Redskins running game is an absolute joke. If you doubt that, you're the same joke too. And, if you're taking the running game stats at face value, let's view Kirk's stats the same way, shall we? He's thrown for more than 9,000 yards and 54 TDs / 23 INTs in the past two years. The only guy who's done better is Matt Ryan. That means Kirk beat out people like Brady, Rodgers, and Brees during that time period. And he's done that in his first two years as a starter.

And, oh yes, I did miss the fatuous point that Kirk's been better than anyone we've had since Theismann. Not only is that true but it's nothing different than using our (and other's) draft history in looking back to the abject lack of a franchise QB since Joey T. While this is not a factor, in and of itself, to keep Kirk or any other QB, it's one factor, when pieced with everything else above, including the fact that Kirk is a franchise QB, to do what we need to sign the guy.

In all, how did I know that you'd tick off each point again without arguing how they all fit into a larger picture and, in the process, making stuff up about a run game that we supposedly had. You made this all that much easier when you admitted, as you must, that Kirk is a franchise QB. Because he is, that's all you need to know on why we need him around -- and why you again engaged in some meandering, useless presentation veiled as some type of RGIII apologist. Congrats, man.

 

[redskinsfan]

Wow thats very nice. Great comment from him. But uhhhh wtf is your point??

It figures that you needed to ask why?

 

[ehb5]

Let's start off -- again -- on why you can't employ basic elements of logic in this piece. First, you stated that you'd address things seriatim. That's fine until you don't realize that each of them operates as a whole. Remember that criminal defense analogy I alluded to? You're no different than a defendant arguing things point by point (e.g., hey, there are a lot of people that frequent that well the victim's body was found) without realizing that each point must be assessed in their entirety.

Second, and more significantly, is your admission that Kirk is a franchise quarterback. You don't seem to get how damaging a concession this is to your lame points. This basically nukes all your points other than the second one, which was about how we haven't drafted QBs wisely in the draft in the past. I mentioned other GMs since that's a larger way of showing that that phenomenon isn't limited to just us but just about everyone else. Hello?! Thus, let me restate this: because we and others have whiffed at drafting QBs in prior years, what makes you think that the draft this -- or anyone other year -- for that matter will make a difference?

Also, your view that we had a "decent" running game is absolutely laughable. This is based simply by you taking statistics at face value without realizing that they're completely bogus. How many other people agree with that? Rick Snider came on The Fan on Monday and stated the obvious: the Redskins running game is an absolute joke. If you doubt that, you're the same joke too. And, if you're taking the running game stats at face value, let's view Kirk's stats the same way, shall we? He's thrown for more than 9,000 yards and 54 TDs / 23 INTs in the past two years. The only guy who's done better is Matt Ryan. That means Kirk beat out people like Brady, Rodgers, and Brees during that time period. And he's done that in his first two years as a starter.

And, oh yes, I did miss the fatuous point that Kirk's been better than anyone we've had since Theismann. Not only is that true but it's nothing different than using our (and other's) draft history in looking back to the abject lack of a franchise QB since Joey T. While this is not a factor, in and of itself, to keep Kirk or any other QB, it's one factor, when pieced with everything else above, including the fact that Kirk is a franchise QB, to do what we need to sign the guy.

In all, how did I know that you'd tick off each point again without arguing how they all fit into a larger picture and, in the process, making stuff up about a run game that we supposedly had. You made this all that much easier when you admitted, as you must, that Kirk is a franchise QB. Because he is, that's all you need to know on why we need him around -- and why you again engaged in some meandering, useless presentation veiled as some type of RGIII apologist. Congrats, man.

So you continue to not address any of the points? Cool.

Also the entire post IS about those specific reasons. That's the point. It does NOT have to do with other things like kirk being a franchise QB. These things have been argued (individually i might add) as good reasons to keep him. But even if you state is as kirk is franchise QB and he's best QB we've had in 30 years - only half of that is good reasoning to keep him. Context or no these things are shitty arguments. You have gone 0 for 6 in disproving that. You can't even stay on topic enough to even try to do so. Good job.

Essentially the entire post you made is just rambling bs about things we weren't debating. You once again change half of the points from what I actually said and ignore the rest.

I will admit that you shockingly said something right at one point though. "Kirk is a franchise QB. Because he is, that's all you need to know on why we need him around". Which is exactly what I've been arguing. THAT is they key point. You figure that out and the rest is useless. Not surprisingly the logic of that sailed over your rg3 apologist head. On the bright side you're close to getting it, but I fear I may have put too many words in this post for you to handle. Hope you made it here to the bottom safely.

 

[ehb5]

It figures that you needed to ask why?

I ask why because it's not relevant. Your little brain for some reason keeps tying in very unrelated things and thinking they mean something. They don't. But it was a nice post thanks for the read.

 

[redskinsfan]

So you continue to not address any of the points? Cool.

Also the entire post IS about those specific reasons. That's the point. It does NOT have to do with other things like kirk being a franchise QB. These things have been argued (individually i might add) as good reasons to keep him. But even if you state is as kirk is franchise QB and he's best QB we've had in 30 years - only half of that is good reasoning to keep him. Context or no these things are shitty arguments. You have gone 0 for 6 in disproving that. You can't even stay on topic enough to even try to do so. Good job.

Essentially the entire post you made is just rambling bs about things we weren't debating. You once again change half of the points from what I actually said and ignore the rest.

I will admit that you shockingly said something right at one point though. "Kirk is a franchise QB. Because he is, that's all you need to know on why we need him around". Which is exactly what I've been arguing. THAT is they key point. You figure that out and the rest is useless. Not surprisingly the logic of that sailed over your rg3 apologist head. On the bright side you're close to getting it, but I fear I may have put too many words in this post for you to handle. Hope you made it here to the bottom safely.

Here we go with the Mr. / Ms. Split routine again. To that, let me quote dad's pithy observation on this that encapsulates your confounding internally inconsistent argument.

well you seem to be making the case for dumping him . In fact one of your reasons for not resigning him is that thinking we cant get anybody better isnt reason enough

so stop dodging put a name or two out there i have put names out there and i am in the same boat you say you are in

i wasnt afraid to make the case against my position with names

And even your individual points are moronic. Yes, Kirk had a running game. LFMAO.

Oh man, you've got problems with logic and a disorder.

Keep on, sir / madam.

 

[redskinsfan]

I ask why because it's not relevant. Your little brain for some reason keeps tying in very unrelated things and thinking they mean something. They don't. But it was a nice post thanks for the read.

Oh suuuurrreee . . . it's like telling a lady that, "Yes, I'd like to marry you. But I think you being attractive, intelligent, lots in common with me aren't reasons for doing so."

How stupid is that?

Un -freaking - believable.

 

[ehb5]

Here we go with the Mr. / Ms. Split routine again. To that, let me quote dad's pithy observation on this that encapsulates your confounding internally inconsistent argument.



And even your individual points are moronic. Yes, Kirk had a running game. LFMAO.

Oh man, you've got problems with logic and a disorder.

Keep on, sir / madam.

The reason I listed the points was because shark asked me what I believed the bad reasons for keeping kirk were. If you had read any of the previous thread before jumping in ready to attack you might have had the slightest idea of that. But that is not what you do. Which is also why I have such little patience for you. Because this isn't the first time you've done it. I've seen you do it to other posters time and time again. You've also done it to me several times where you angrily jumped in and argued against a point I WASN'T making. I had to ask you several times (while you continued to blather away) to go reread my original post. Finally, you did and came back with your tail between your legs admitting your wrong. If it had been just that time - ok I'll forgive ya. But it hasn't been. You've done it both to me and others several times making you somebody who is incapable of being trusted to have a basic, rational, logical, and literate conversation with.


Finally I might add that Kirk having a good running game is not the point I made. Because shockingly you can't read what I write. So now you're arguing against something else entirely. Good job.

 

[ehb5]

Oh suuuurrreee . . . it's like telling a lady that, "Yes, I'd like to marry you. But I think you being attractive, intelligent, lots in common with me aren't reasons for doing so."

How stupid is that?

Un -freaking - believable.

Lol I already showed you why that analogy doesn't work. Keep it in the real world bud. Leave your fantasies in that illiterate head of yours.

 

[redskinsfan]

The reason I listed the points was because shark asked me what I believed the bad reasons for keeping kirk were. If you had read any of the previous thread before jumping in ready to attack you might have had the slightest idea of that. But that is not what you do. Which is also why I have such little patience for you. Because this isn't the first time you've done it. I've seen you do it to other posters time and time again. You've also done it to me several times where you angrily jumped in and argued against a point I WASN'T making. I had to ask you several times (while you continued to blather away) to go reread my original post. Finally, you did and came back with your tail between your legs admitting your wrong. If it had been just that time - ok I'll forgive ya. But it hasn't been. You've done it both to me and others several times making you somebody who is incapable of being trusted to have a basic, rational, logical, and literate conversation with.


Finally I might add that Kirk having a good running game is not the point I made. Because shockingly you can't read what I write. So now you're arguing against something else entirely. Good job.

I actually did read your post. I understand the general point that there are some reasons that aren't good ones in retaining a player. But read in context and knowing what you've thought about Kirk in the past informs my responses to what you posted. Even dad backs me up on that.

And the point about the running game is, whether it's relevant or not, simply shows how bankrupt your logic is and how it points to your bias against Kirk. Are you now backing away from that point? LOL

 

[redskinsfan]

Lol I already showed you why that analogy doesn't work. Keep it in the real world bud. Leave your fantasies in that illiterate head of yours.

Uh huh. The real world is about seeing the bigger picture, something you apparently can't do. Of course, you thought that Kirk had a running game to support as well. You can't even grasp smaller pictures as well.
The logic you employ is nothing different than crap ass criminal defense attorneys that do more than their share to get their clients convicted. Not that you'd ever come to close to becoming one yourself, but you're in good company there, Mr. / Ms. Split.

Yes, you believe that Kirk is a franchise QB and want to keep him but don't believe things like setting two consecutive franchise records, a poor record of drafting QBs not only by us but other GMs as well, etc. are reasons for keeping him.

So, dummy, if those aren't good reasons, what are?!

 

[ehb5]

I actually did read your post. I understand the general point that there are some reasons that aren't good ones in retaining a player. But read in context and knowing what you've thought about Kirk in the past informs my responses to what you posted. Even dad backs me up on that.

And the point about the running game is, whether it's relevant or not, simply shows how bankrupt your logic is and how it points to your bias against Kirk. Are you now backing away from that point? LOL

Right. Cuz you read in context. Good one. And if you think I want anything but the best for Kirk here in DC then that's on you for reading things that aren't there. Cuz I haven't said anything to that nature at all.

Do I need to write in all caps for you? Or maybe some like bright flashing neon letters?

The point I made was that some people have said kirk needs more help on offense. This is a bad reason to keep him. He has a ton of help on offense. He has a top 5 pass catching unit, solid oline, and solid running game (what I actually said). The running game could obviously be better. But if you think he needs more help around him on offense you're basically saying he isn't that good of a QB. If we're giving this much money to a guy he needs to be able to run a solid offense without everything going perfectly for him. This is really a very simple concept.

 

[redskinsfan]

Right. Cuz you read in context. Good one. And if you think I want anything but the best for Kirk here in DC then that's on you for reading things that aren't there. Cuz I haven't said anything to that nature at all.

Do I need to write in all caps for you? Or maybe some like bright flashing neon letters?

The point I made was that some people have said kirk needs more help on offense. This is a bad reason to keep him. He has a ton of help on offense. He has a top 5 pass catching unit, solid oline, and solid running game (what I actually said). The running game could obviously be better. But if you think he needs more help around him on offense you're basically saying he isn't that good of a QB. If we're giving this much money to a guy he needs to be able to run a solid offense without everything going perfectly for him. This is really a very simple concept.

Uhhhhh, no I didn't say that. I'll say this: he's got a top flight receiving corps and an o-line that's given him enough time to pass. However, ticking off all those weapons in the passing game becomes a diminishing return. There's a point where stacking the receiving corps doesn't net you any further significant gains.

And you're smoking a big long glass pipe if you think he's got anything close to a "solid" running game. Outside of a few games, he basically had zip. Listen to Rick Snider discussing that issue with Junkies. He, in particular, noted how the Giants knew that the Redskins had no running game and decided to blitz him constantly knowing that things like a draw wouldn't hurt them.

You are bat s insane.

 

[ehb5]

Uhhhhh, no I didn't say that. I'll say this: he's got a top flight receiving corps and an o-line that's given him enough time to pass. However, ticking off all those weapons in the passing game becomes a diminishing return. There's a point where stacking the receiving corps doesn't net you any further significant gains.

And you're smoking a big long glass pipe if you think he's got anything close to a "solid" running game. Outside of a few games, he basically had zip. Listen to Rick Snider discussing that issue with Junkies. He, in particular, noted how the Giants knew that the Redskins had no running game and decided to blitz him constantly knowing that things like a draw wouldn't hurt them.

You are bat s insane.

So do you think Kirk cousins needs more on offense to be successful, then what he had this year?

 

[redskinsfan]

So do you think Kirk cousins needs more on offense to be successful, then what he had this year?

Yes, a running game and a left guard. We need to retain at least one of Garcon and D-Jax as well. The lack of a running game was a huge void. If you listen to Rick Snider, he explains why the lack of a running game was a huge factor in our low red-zone percentage.

 

[ehb5]

Yes, a running game and a left guard. We need to retain at least one of Garcon and D-Jax as well. The lack of a running game was a huge void. If you listen to Rick Snider, he explains why the lack of a running game was a huge factor in our low red-zone percentage.

So he wasn't successful this year?

 

[redskinsfan]

So he wasn't successful this year?

Kirk? He was pretty damn successful despite the lack of a running game and (run) defense. He was constantly asked to win games by himself and to compensate for deficiencies in the running game and defense. As to the latter, we took on big step in correcting that part of our game.

 

[ehb5]

Kirk? He was pretty damn successful despite the lack of a running game and (run) defense. He was constantly asked to win games by himself and to compensate for deficiencies in the running game and defense. As to the latter, we took on big step in correcting that part of our game.

Lol. I'm done here. Your mental gymnastics are exhausting to follow. Maybe ill see ya on another thread some times but please if you're gonna quote me make sure you read and understand what I said before you make yourself look like an idiot again.

 

[redskinsfan]

Lol. I'm done here. Your mental gymnastics are exhausting to follow. Maybe ill see ya on another thread some times but please if you're gonna quote me make sure you read and understand what I said before you make yourself look like an idiot again.

I suppose me and people like Cooley and Rick Snider will form a unique circle of idiots among others like Ross Tucker in believing that. Try listening to Cooley's podcast with Kevin Sheehan that's linked in another thread. He opines that the Redskins offense would be far, far different if they had a decent running game. It's beyond idiocy for you to think that we had anything more than an abysmal run offense. But I'll take your whiff at any further response as a white flag. Keep using bleach to make sure it retains that shock of white. You'll need to wave it again.

 

[skinsdad62]

I suppose me and people like Cooley and Rick Snider will form a unique circle of idiots among others like Ross Tucker in believing that. Try listening to Cooley's podcast with Kevin Sheehan that's linked in another thread. He opines that the Redskins offense would be far, far different if they had a decent running game. It's beyond idiocy for you to think that we had anything more than an abysmal run offense. But I'll take your whiff at any further response as a white flag. Keep using bleach to make sure it retains that shock of white. You'll need to wave it again.

our run game wasnt used enough , the question is could it be used more ?

 

[redskinsfan]

our run game wasnt used enough , the question is could it be used more ?

It was clear that it wasn't going to work especially under Matt Jones, who also had a fumbling issue. Cooley does a good job in articulating why Kelley wasn't the answer either and how, if we had a better running game, our offense would have been far different. Cooley explained that Kelley didn't have the best vision you expected from a RB and that our run game suffered for it.